Debunking Popular Mechanics

Yet another hit and run...

Now he reminds me of the big "Goalie Hitman" in that scene in "The Running Man". You know, the one where arnold is on the ice, and then out of the darkness he is checked by the hockey player combatant. Then in an instant the guy is gone...then out of nowhere another check...then gone again...

TAM
 
What a troll.

Usually I would say, "don't feed the trolls"...but seriously.

At least he is funny, although very, very ignorant.
 
pgwenthold said:
Has Randi made her position clear on the issue? Whenever I hear the topic come up, she seems to hedge a lot, but sounds more sympathetic than not. I know she is a big fan of that group of widows who keeps asking for another review.

OTOH, Randi got nothing on Rachel Maddow, by far the best on Air America.

BTW, did you hear Al Franken is quitting as of Feb 14? Speculation is that it is in preparation for a senate bid.
Click to expand...
This is the one area where Randi R. vacillates - unusual for her, since typically a listener knows EXACTLY where she stands on issues. She seems to skew towards the woos, much to my disappointment. I've started threads on her board directly criticizing her endorsement of 9/11 woo - and then have to take hasty cover from the outrage pouring from her loyal fan base. But I'll do it for the same reason I'm here, for the same reason y'all are here. Accuracy is paramount concerning 9/11. There are too many sensibilities involved.

I don't listen to Rachel Maddow, don't care for her. Nor Sam Seder.

Franken I'll miss. He's starting his Senator from Minnesota bid for 2008. Franken took no callers but had terrific guests. Very sharp folks.

Mike Malloy caught on at Nova M Radio and he's terrific. Except when - yep - he endorses this 9/11 woo-woo crapola.

Randi R. is far and away my favorite, which is where my consternation comes from when she occasionally slips into "inside job" mode. Basically they'll call me every name in the book when I chastise her on her forum - you oughtta see some of the stuff. Oh well. Sometimes, truth hurts. But it's the MOST important thing.

Yer allowed to swear on Randi's forum. And man, do they ever :)
 
MortFurd said:
The bolded section is discredited for a simple, clear reason. American television video runs at 30 frames per second. A single frame is therefore 33.33 milliseconds long, making it impossible for timing to be determined down to the millisecond.
Click to expand...

Just to be pedantic...
NTSC runs at 30/1.001, or about 29.97 frames per second. However, it's interlaced.
The field rate is double that, 59.94 fields per second.
You get the odd lines, then the even, then the odd, etc.
Every odd/even pair of fields makes up a frame at around 30/second.

Interlacing is why you often get jagged lines when you watch video on a computer if it came from an interlaced source.
So, the actual number is 16.68ms.

I'm really curious why the original poster said "a millisecond before." My guess is that a millisecond just sounds like a short period of time or something.
 
I will post this again.
CptColumbo said:
If you want to point out any specific errors in the PM book/article I have my copy in front of me, just mention a page number and paragraph. I also am in occasional contact with one of the journalists on the original article, so he can clarify any questions not immediately obvious. We can work through this slowly and carefully, and maybe both learn something.
Click to expand...

Given your admitted lack of experience and education in the necessary fields, perhaps someone here can put the science in terms you can understand. Just tell us what the specific problems are. We are here to educate. It's part of the title JREF for cryin' out loud.

If they are purely political and idealogical problems, there is not much we can do about that.
 
This thread has become pointless as our "fact filled" new friend has pulled a TS1234 and moved on to a new topic in another thread.
 
I consider all of them pointless, but the audio I linked to was pretty damn interesting. The evasion was almost woo like. Surprising.
 
Minadin said:
That earned a square on my play-at-home scorecard!

1253245bf877da60b8.gif


The argument's not dead till I say "Bingo", durn it. Come on, Kameelyun.
Click to expand...

Have you posted/can you post a clean set of BINGO cards? I was going to play when I have time as I read and try to develope lessons plans to stop terminal stupidity from occuring in the future.
 
kameelyun said:
My own voice. I did lots of reading and then put it all into my own words...
Click to expand...

Lots of reading. Little comprehending.

You sure read my review very quickly, having replied within a minute of my posting.
Click to expand...

We can tell when we've seen an argument before.

The editors flat-out lie when they say that WTC7 was massively damaged when the damage was only minimal, especially in contrast to WTCs 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Click to expand...

The experts and eyewitnesses seem to disagree with you, for some reason.

I knew this would be the kind of flaming I would receive.
Click to expand...

Well at least you're not completely deluded.

Of course, you've never seen some real flaming, but we'll let that slide for now.

As a truth seeker, I am not required to have all the answers.
Click to expand...

As the claimant, you ARE required to prove your assertions, however.

The amout of swift responses I received here means I must have ruffled some feathers!
Click to expand...

Non sequitur.
 
Pardalis said:
See this animal?
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/888644bed1fba333b.jpg[/qimg]

Could you tell me just by looking at this animal if it is more closely related to this animal,
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/8886453ba22b48c43.jpg[/qimg]

or this one?[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/8886453ba20b93c41.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Tell me!! Tell ME!!
 
kameelyun said:
I have no idea what James Randi's views are on 9/11, but one thing is pretty clear. This forum is for true believers of the official conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...

Not a matter of belief.

However, even those posts were of a "Provide evidence, and I bet you can't, haha."
Click to expand...

Well in science evidence tends to be important.

As a "twoofer," my mission is to educate as many people as I can about the existense of the collapse of WTC 7.
Click to expand...

You might want to start with yourself, then.

I clearly am not going to change the minds of anyone on this board who disregard Steve Jones' work, who is a physicist... Oh, I'm sorry, his specialty is cold fusion, which makes him totally unqualified to talk about the collapse of buildings.
Click to expand...

Indeed, indeed it does.

I knew within a few posts I would get the "what are your engineering qualifications?" My answer is: none, other than that I am a concerned citizen.
Click to expand...

... with no way of telling whether a building collapse looks like a CD or not.

Also, having no engineering qualifications actually makes the MIHOP case stronger: If the demolition is so obvious that even a non-scientist can call on it with certainty... you get my point.
Click to expand...

No. Because those with actual qualifications disagree with you.

You know the "air pressure" coming from WTC 7 as it collapses? MAN, they look like blast points!
Click to expand...

No, they don't. Again with the lack of knowledge.
 
Thanks, I should point out again that I'm not the originator of that idea, I merely modified some of the squares to more widely apply to all / woo type arguments, since the original one was made on a toy fan / collector website. I'll see if I can find the links to the originals.

Edit:

Where I found it:

http://www.shortpacked.com/d/20060405.html
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom